Saturday, July 27, 2013

Pete Lite Comp: Warmachine Cap - A Revision Due?

There has been some chat this week on Twitter re the warmachine cap in
Pete Lite Comp. Currently warmachines are limited to four (with two O&G
chukkas counting as a single choice and the Steam Tank counting as a choice).

The question posed is would it be such a bad thing if the cap was
removed?

The armies it impacts most on are Dwarfs, Chaos Dwarfs and Empire.

Would we see a change in the makeup of those armies if the cap was
removed.

I believe that we would see an increase in warmachines and I think
that I would be comfortable in limiting only bolt throwers and their ilk to
being 3+. This would mean that there would continue to be a limit on cannons
(though Empire it seems are ok with three, if you include the Steam Tank - not
sure why they are ok).

There seems to be two schools developing. The one is that the game
is becoming Monster-hammer - and multi wound warmachines are a counter to this
- while the other is that Monsters are largely missing from the game.

I think that the truth (as always) is in the middle. However I do
think a Dwarf gunline or an Empire battery is a response to Monster-hammer and
if you think that is the best investment of points then should you be
restricted?

However I know Dwarf players and I'd confidently expect to face 6+
warmachines and 3+ scroll runes castled up in a corner looking for that 10-10
win.

What do people think? Should the warmachine cap be removed to be
replaced with "Only Bolt Throwers and Spear Chukkas can be 3+".

The point of Pete Lite has always been to be permissive. This is
becoming more so as we see more 8th Ed books. I expect a swathe of Lizard
restrictions may go if the book is rebalanced on release.

No, that might be what happens in a more restrictive comp system but restrictions for their own sake is not the basis of this system. Want to play a pool system then SCGT offers that.

There has to be variation between armies and Daemons unlike Ogres, for instance, are much more susceptible to Magic (ref: Hellheart, Dispel Scroll, Feedback Scroll, Rune Maw).

Does DoC having two Skullcannons break the game? No. Personally I'd only use one as points are spent better elsewhere.

Does OKs having two Ironblasters break the game? A lot of people said yes last year, hence the restriction.

For me I'd prefer to go with no warmachine cap other than:

General Restriction:

No triple of the same warmachine except for Elven Bolt Throwers/O&G Spear Chukkas where you may take up to 4.

Specific Restrictions:

Ogres: Ironblaster 0-1Chaos Dwarfs: Magma Cannon 0-1Skaven: WLC 0-1

Again personally, I've dropped my single WLC as I believe there are better places to spend points. I may be proved wrong. Two WLCs would give potentially more certainty (the WLC's problem is variability) and therefore potentially remains a concern.

"No triple of the same warmachine except for Elven Bolt Throwers/O&G Spear Chukkas where you may take up to 4"

I think its good general restriction.

As my suggestion has a level of bias (justified bias however)

For Specifics are standard and have been for the last year and there is no need to change them.

However not to put the Skullcannon in same Red zone as the Ironblaster I dont agree with.

Its quite clearly as good if not better. Yes is doesnt have rerolls But has alot of strengths in a ward save, WS, Healing, no weakness to flanks or rear etc where the Ironblaster miss out.Im not saying the Ironblaster is weak because its not.You say the Skullcannon doesnt break the daemon army, I think it does iv played with both 1 and 2 iron blasters many time and moving cannon platforms are broken irrelevant on the rest of the army.

If there wasn't a cap, I would take 5 war machines with my Dwarves. With no magic, abysmal movement and mediocre combat, Dwarves need shooting to kill key elements of the enemy army, have some degree of board control and shape/attrit enemy units before combat. This might make for boring and one-dimensional play, but you use the cards you've been dealt. If I can't rely on magic, movement and combat to win, I need to use shooting, sad but true.

My take on the meta is that protection, speed and killiness levels have increased greatly, as exemplified by Monsterous Cav and the A-list monsters (Chimeras, Abombs, Daemon Princes). Some armies can cope with this, either through their own MC/monsters, through cheap tarpits or through magic. But some can't, and need war-machines to help with this.

I think allowing war machines to increase will help deal with the new tanks out there. This acts as a check on the MC/A-list monsters, and helps tone it down. It's like any eco-system. If the counters to an organism are suppressed, then that organism will increase, sometimes too far. People should be free to take Chimeras, Mournfangs and Phoenixes, but they should also be mindful that somewhere out there might be lurking a Helblaster or Grudge Thrower with their name on it.

Finally, I don't think war-machines reduce monsters as much as people think. There's a clear division between the A-list and B-list monsters. The former are normally protected by wards/regen, are fast and quite cheap for their points. The B-listers, like Giants, Cygors, Thundertusks and the like are unlikely to be be taken even if war-machines were suppressed further. Lack of protection to BS shooting, poison or simple mass attacks as well as relatively high points cost normally rule them out anyway.

So, in short, no limit on war machines please. Yes, I'm biased, but you did ask for my opinion......